In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be:
Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
The entire three paragraphs are the basic screed. She says we need to attack masculinity directly, not recuperate (separate out toxic, what I understood to be farva’s point). That it’s all about feeling good about yourself and the need to stand opposed. That masculinity itself is suspicious for arousing feelings of superiority. Masculinity is a hazardous ideology. These are her arguments and are stunning. Femininity and masculinity were previously realized as a broad range of personality traits, attitudes, and sometimes virtues that stood somewhat opposed to each other and somewhat not (compare how innocent it is for asking a man to get more in touch with his feminine side). Abandoning one side of that structure is core sexual egalitarianism. It’s right there in the writing.
I’m too much convinced that people have made up their mind on third wave feminism and toxic masculinity to argue someone into believing that today’s emanations are dangerous to society. My first question was if the forum leftists agreed with this person’s take or disagreed: its masculinity itself that needs to be opposed and talking about toxic (as differentiated) falls by the wayside. Not reform but dismantlement. My second question from people that remember the machismo discussion was if they could now see why some men conclude toxic masculinity was always about making the term overbroad and attacking the base.
Your whining and butthurt over oddball feminist rants proves my point about the primacy of Kulturkampf in modern conservatism. Internet culture warriors prop up these rants and send them around in clickbait circle jerks of condemnation. You culture commandos get yourselves all triggered by the scary terms some gender studies majors are using and pretend like this is a serious issue beyond your own clickbait circles. I understand that your masculinity is so fragile that a handful of gender studies majors are enough to wilt your manhood. The rest of us are not so affected.
EDIT: to your question as to what board leftists think about the targets of the anti-SJW movement ... Critical ____ studies and gender studies majors and their associated departments at universities and community colleges have existed for decades. These groups have no money, no politicians, and no corporations behind them. That confused 19-23 year old kids make protest signs that I don't agree with doesn't bother me. That some of the broadest definition of the term 'left' have some silly ideas about gender that I don't consider liberal, is not a big deal. Give these kids 4 years and they will grow up just like every previous generation of 19-23 year olds. Also, there have been extreme professors corrupting the youth since Socrates. This stuff isn't a big deal.
Now the anti-SJW movement itself is a serious threat. All kinds of internet tough guys use SJWs as some kind of excuse to abandon principle and vote for Trump.
On October 31 2017 22:49 Mohdoo wrote: If Republicans need Clinton to support Mueller, by all means. It's actually pretty relieving to see Mueller take out podesta. I've been worried Republicans will only tolerate so many convictions. Throwing in some members of the Republicans most wanted list helps keep the right on board.
I think that the problem here is that most people are still viewing the Mueller investigation through the partisan narrative lens of "this is all about Trump." Presuming that this is no longer what the investigation is about (to the extent it ever was -- think about that one for a moment), it's not exactly fair to expect people who have been all wound up by the media (left and right) to simply stop on a dime and change their perspective all at once.
Consider this: last week I noted that, in light of all of the new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One, Mueller investigating the Podestas, etc, that there was clearly a change happening in the media narrative -- that we were seeing information that did not comport with what everyone thought that the Mueller investigation was all about. Yesterday, we finally saw the first indictments, and they really had little-to-nothing to do with Trump/Russia collusion. To the contrary, the indictments and the information in them were very much germane to the information that was leaked to the media last week. I highly doubt that the timing of these stories was coincidental. I think we're being fed information to slowly change the narrative to comport with what Mueller is actually doing, because we're going to be shocked at how far he's going to go.
What your seeing is the Republican PR machine going full steam to muddy the water now that its harder to deny Mueller will find anything. See drumming up
new revelations that were coming out about Uranium One
when there is 1) nothing new and 2) everything old has been debunked. "Look at this, or this, or this, or maybe this, anything that is not people who were around Trump being arrested".
Like I said, I don't think that people understand what Mueller is actually doing. Yesterday was the first time that we actually got real confirmation of what he has been looking at and investigating over the past several months. You really expect political apparatuses to switch gears on a dime after being conditioned for months to view the investigation through pure partisanship? I don't.
I'm not sure why you're referring to the "Podestas" in the plural, other than to try to drag the Clinton camp into things. It is the case that the Mueller investigation is, first and foremost, an investigation of the Trump campaign (by the terms of Mueller's authorization as special counsel).
The main event is still very much the Trump campaign, and the George P revelations, combined with other campaign willingness to obtain dirt on Hillary from Russia, start to reveal at least a desire to collude.
i would like to say i'm shocked by the false equivalence between tony podesta's work and everything papadou, manafort and gate have done, but i'm not.
You realize that Mueller has alleged that Podesta conspired with Manafort to do all of Manafort's allegedly illegal stuff, right?
And if your beef is with the allegation of John being lumped in with his brother, the allegation is neither unfounded nor unsubstantiated. In particular, per Carlson's reporting, Mueller has a witness who will testify to just that.
manafort lied to the feds about lobbying for the party of regions. who's to say he didn't lie to his business partners about it either? i posted this yesterday.
sure it's possible tony podesta knew everything. it's also very possible that he didn't.
You could be right. But Mueller very clearly disagrees with you.
mueller is looking into it. it's far from 'very clear' that there's anything going on. you're projecting your own opinion of guilt onto the facts of the investigation.
You should take a very close look at what Mueller alleges regarding Company B in the Manafort indictment. And in particular, Paragraph 24. He's alleging facts showing that the Podesta Group (likely Tony Podesta himself) assisted in covering up what Manafort was up to. Not to mention the fact that Mueller notes that the Podesta Group was paid directly by Manafort (not the made up client) and the Podesta Group interfaced directly with Ukrainian/Russian politicians as part of the lobbying.
even weirder is you said manafort is a nothingburger, or rather that failure to report foreign lobbying isn't that big of a deal. why with regards to tony podesta are you making it such a huge issue then? can't really have that both ways.
I find it amusing that so many people on the board are unable to distinguish between a poster's argument and a poster discussing someone else's argument. Do none of you bother to read things from people with whom you disagree and actually attempt to understand a counterargument? I cited the McCarthy piece in response to GH's point that the charge against Manafort likely isn't a big deal because of how such a construction of the laws would impact lobbying in general. I discussed the McCarthy piece and acknowledged that he has a point. I never adopted it as my position. In fact, I'm pretty sure you'll find me stating somewhere yesterday that I couldn't really comment on the strength of the indictment because I was not familiar enough with that area of law.
My only point regarding the quality of the indictment is this: to the extent that Manafort is in trouble, it's very clear that the Podesta Group and Mercury LLC are in just as much trouble given what is in the Manafort indictment.
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
Why "strangely silent"? There's a lot of stuff on the internet to consume, and most people who are on it will tacitly accept that most of it is dumb. Attempting to comment on everything that is dumb is pointless.
People comment on things that they care about. Such as, you care about some American culture war, so you will comment on things related to it.
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be:
Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
The entire three paragraphs are the basic screed. She says we need to attack masculinity directly, not recuperate (separate out toxic, what I understood to be farva’s point). That it’s all about feeling good about yourself and the need to stand opposed. That masculinity itself is suspicious for arousing feelings of superiority. Masculinity is a hazardous ideology. These are her arguments and are stunning. Femininity and masculinity were previously realized as a broad range of personality traits, attitudes, and sometimes virtues that stood somewhat opposed to each other and somewhat not (compare how innocent it is for asking a man to get more in touch with his feminine side). Abandoning one side of that structure is core sexual egalitarianism. It’s right there in the writing.
I’m too much convinced that people have made up their mind on third wave feminism and toxic masculinity to argue someone into believing that today’s emanations are dangerous to society. My first question was if the forum leftists agreed with this person’s take or disagreed: its masculinity itself that needs to be opposed and talking about toxic (as differentiated) falls by the wayside. Not reform but dismantlement. My second question from people that remember the machismo discussion was if they could now see why some men conclude toxic masculinity was always about making the term overbroad and attacking the base.
Your whining and butthurt over oddball feminist rants proves my point about the primacy of Kulturkampf in modern conservatism. Internet culture warriors prop up these rants and send them around in clickbait circle jerks of condemnation. You culture commandos get yourselves all triggered by the scary terms some gender studies majors are using and pretend like this is a serious issue beyond your own clickbait circles. I understand that your masculinity is so fragile that a handful of gender studies majors are enough to wilt your manhood. The rest of us are not so affected.
EDIT: to your question as to what board leftists think about the targets of the anti-SJW movement ... Critical ____ studies and gender studies majors and their associated departments at universities and community colleges have existed for decades. These groups have no money, no politicians, and no corporations behind them. That confused 19-23 year old kids make protest signs that I don't agree with doesn't bother me. That some of the broadest definition of the term 'left' have some silly ideas about gender that I don't consider liberal, is not a big deal. Give these kids 4 years and they will grow up just like every previous generation of 19-23 year olds. Also, there have been extreme professors corrupting the youth since Socrates. This stuff isn't a big deal.
Now the anti-SJW movement itself is a serious threat. All kinds of internet tough guys use SJWs as some kind of excuse to abandon principle and vote for Trump.
Anti SJW is the real threat, eh? You should agree more that you make it about culture war so you’re biased to overplay its responsibility for Trump. Instead of being all butthurt and whining about it.
i for one reject wholly that any war on toxic masculinity is a war on masculinity in and of itself.
in my opinion a man should not have to feel like he needs to ‘man up’ or any of the usual ‘toxic masculinity’ bullshit. saying this and holding this opinion in no way takes away the rights of those who wish to be traditionally masculine from being traditionally masculine. to each their own.
but like wolf said, this isn’t something i feel strongly enough about that i thought an opinion from the peanut gallery was warranted. i guess here’s my small part, in spite of that.
if your intention was to discredit her publication by posting a tweet that doesn't offer anything regarding what it states ("ignores founding fathers") in the link posted, you failed miserably. The wording of the tweet probably already triggered you so reading comprehension was down the drain already. nothing less to expect from you though. Important take-away from her text might be:
Implicit in the metaphor is the idea that we will have reached gender equality when men and women alike embrace both halves of their humanity: masculinity and femininity.[/qoute] Note that this means to accept a virtue as something desirable in whomever it manifests, be it man or woman. A "female virtue", say compassion, is not a weakness in a man as vigour isn't in a woman. What you also could have noted by reading is, that feminism isn't just about women.+ Show Spoiler +
Feminist critiques of projects like Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In (2013), for example—those that exhort women to compete with men in male-dominated workplaces—suggest that women’s embrace of masculinity may be good for individual women but actually quite bad for society.9 Relishing competition over cooperation, taking pleasure in beating opponents, and showing no remorse for hoarding wealth and exploiting power are features of a masculine “politics of domination.”10 Is it really a better world if half of the winners of this game are women?
It's about equality.
And her final paragraphs adress her take on toxic masculinity + Show Spoiler +
If we’re going to survive both President Trump and the kind of people he has emboldened, we need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity—that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it—I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves. This idea is sexist on its face and it’s unsettling that we so rarely think of it that way.
In fact, we should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white. We should understand, in hindsight, that one of the reasons women were so keen to embrace masculinity in the first place was because it feels good to feel superior. And we should recognize, as well, that it is men’s belief that they should be superior to women and other men that is the cause of so much of their rage, self-hatred, and suffering.
We are here in Trump’s America in part because we have been too delicate in our treatment of dangerous ideas. The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic. Its appeal is its alluring promise that if we obey it, we can all bask in a sense of superiority over someone. It’s simply not compatible with liberty and justice for all.
If we are going to finish the gender revolution, then, we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it. We need to stop talking about what it means to be a “real man” or an “empowered woman,” and begin talking, instead, about what it means to be a good person and a good citizen. Our nation’s future depends upon it. icon
This, again, underscores that feminism isn't about women dominating men, but to disavow the domination of one another as a goal and aspiration.
It doesn’t get much better/different in light of the quoted portion. It’s not about separating toxic from regular and recuperating the term ... it’s about rejecting the entire idea in her view. It’s pretty much straight radical egalitarianism. It stuck out to me because farva pulled out toxic masculinity by saying its just I’ll defined in English compared to machismo. I was interested if he (and others from those pages) were willing to admit the term and it’s use does apply broadly in areas of academia and it’s a natural takeaway from today’s use of the term. As opposed to defined narrowly and having natural limits. For all I know, the conversation has shifted again and the people from that conversation are in wholehearted agreement.
In addition to what kwark said, can you rephrase the bolded part? I'm too dumb to understand it. Might also be an autocorrect issue but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
The entire three paragraphs are the basic screed. She says we need to attack masculinity directly, not recuperate (separate out toxic, what I understood to be farva’s point). That it’s all about feeling good about yourself and the need to stand opposed. That masculinity itself is suspicious for arousing feelings of superiority. Masculinity is a hazardous ideology. These are her arguments and are stunning. Femininity and masculinity were previously realized as a broad range of personality traits, attitudes, and sometimes virtues that stood somewhat opposed to each other and somewhat not (compare how innocent it is for asking a man to get more in touch with his feminine side). Abandoning one side of that structure is core sexual egalitarianism. It’s right there in the writing.
I’m too much convinced that people have made up their mind on third wave feminism and toxic masculinity to argue someone into believing that today’s emanations are dangerous to society. My first question was if the forum leftists agreed with this person’s take or disagreed: its masculinity itself that needs to be opposed and talking about toxic (as differentiated) falls by the wayside. Not reform but dismantlement. My second question from people that remember the machismo discussion was if they could now see why some men conclude toxic masculinity was always about making the term overbroad and attacking the base.
Your whining and butthurt over oddball feminist rants proves my point about the primacy of Kulturkampf in modern conservatism. Internet culture warriors prop up these rants and send them around in clickbait circle jerks of condemnation. You culture commandos get yourselves all triggered by the scary terms some gender studies majors are using and pretend like this is a serious issue beyond your own clickbait circles. I understand that your masculinity is so fragile that a handful of gender studies majors are enough to wilt your manhood. The rest of us are not so affected.
EDIT: to your question as to what board leftists think about the targets of the anti-SJW movement ... Critical ____ studies and gender studies majors and their associated departments at universities and community colleges have existed for decades. These groups have no money, no politicians, and no corporations behind them. That confused 19-23 year old kids make protest signs that I don't agree with doesn't bother me. That some of the broadest definition of the term 'left' have some silly ideas about gender that I don't consider liberal, is not a big deal. Give these kids 4 years and they will grow up just like every previous generation of 19-23 year olds. Also, there have been extreme professors corrupting the youth since Socrates. This stuff isn't a big deal.
Now the anti-SJW movement itself is a serious threat. All kinds of internet tough guys use SJWs as some kind of excuse to abandon principle and vote for Trump.
Anti SJW is the real threat, eh? You should agree more that you make it about culture war so you’re biased to overplay its responsibility for Trump. Instead of being all butthurt and whining about it.
Trump was actually elected, and thus far no radical feminists or leftists hold a high political office.
I think it's a fair analysis that one group is having a larger impact than the other.
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
Why "strangely silent"? There's a lot of stuff on the internet to consume, and most people who are on it will tacitly accept that most of it is dumb. Attempting to comment on everything that is dumb is pointless.
People comment on things that they care about. Such as, you care about some American culture war, so you will comment on things related to it.
I care about finding what’s the forum fringe and what’s mainstream. I’m constantly disappointed by the shift towards the fringe. Did you read the Coates piece and what did you think of it?
Any talk of a "war on Masculinity" is going to actually define what he means by Masculinity because its not in any way a universal concept and is highly variable cross culturally.
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
So you agree that your basically just scared about stuff you see on TV.
Just like i tought... Well, then, keep on the fight against stuff you don't even encounter, know or have any clue about... UP UP AND AWAY...
edit: i didn't read any article, i just asked you out of pure curiosity after reading some of your latest posts.
I think Mr. Legum is getting a little ahead of himself by presuming that Mr. Trump is the person who should be worried. After seeing what's in the indictments, I can think of several people who have more to worry about now.
EDIT: Speaking of which, where is the ChristianS police? Here's the opportunity for him to prove my charge of hypocrisy wrong.
Still catching up on the thread, a bit busy at work atm. Is the quoted post supposed to be the offending one? Because I can kinda see how you'd argue that a lot of the current talk about Trump/Russia would qualify for the "vague insinuation conspiracy theory" criticism, except little enough is known at the moment that it's a bit hard to tell which are people being intentionally vague and which are judt people doing the best with the info they have. At least, it's hard for me to tell without following the Russia investigation more thsn I have.
Feel free to make the case yourself, if you think someone's playing the same games you've been accused of. Alternatively, feel free to rebut the criticisms of yourself, rather than trying to deflect with "double standard" (implying I'm obligated to give the same level of scrutiny to everyone because I did it to you once) or "hypocrisy" (apparently I'm somehow guilty of the same thing I accused you of even thouh I haven't even been posting?)
Yep, that's the post. It's very clearly even more unsubstantiated than what you interrogated me over this past weekend (and no, that wasn't the first time that you'd pulled that stunt, either). And in case you haven't noticed, I have spent the past several pages making the case myself, which should make your job quite easy. So please, feel free to demonstrate your fairness to everyone.
Just caught up in the thread. This is a bad argument from you, and I think you know it. At best you're arguing "ChristianS's criticisms of me might be right, but other people in the thread do it too." I don't post in the thread that often, but this past weekend I thought I'd take the time to dissect your posts from last week and explain what I thought you were trying for rhetorically. Now you're trying for some trick where if you can prove I haven't taken the same amount of time for every other poster, somehow you're exonerated?
Since I have to go back to work, I'll at least mention that imo people shouldn't take Doodsmack too seriously on Trump/Russia stuff, although even in his case I haven't seen reason to believe he doesn't believe what he's preaching. But I'm not obligated to be "fair" to you, or to police the thread for disingenuous rhetoric. If I were to try to dissect every possibly-bullshit post in this thread I'd have to quit my job just to keep up.
Meanwhile you have yet to clarify what the fuck you think happened in Uranium One, content as you are to leave it at vague innuendo.
Some employees at Fox News were left embarrassed and humiliated by their network's coverage of the latest revelations in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling, according to conversations CNN had with several individuals placed throughout the network. "I'm watching now and screaming," one Fox News personality said in a text message to CNN as the person watched their network's coverage. "I want to quit." "It is another blow to journalists at Fox who come in every day wanting to cover the news in a fair and objective way," one senior Fox News employee told CNN of their outlet's coverage, adding that there were "many eye rolls" in the newsroom over how the news was covered. The person said, "Fox feels like an extension of the Trump White House." The employees spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. A Fox News spokesperson told CNN the network covered the breaking news accurately and fairly across both news and opinion programming. On Monday, it was revealed that President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and another associate Rick Gates had been indicted by a grand jury on 12 counts, including conspiracy against the United States. Unsealed court records also revealed that another Trump associate, George Papadopoulos, had pleaded guilty to making a false statement to the FBI weeks ago. The revelations jolted through the news media, and Fox News -- the highest rated network in the country -- did cover it as its top story. But in contrast with CNN and MSNBC, which aired non-stop rolling coverage throughout the day, Fox News found plenty of time to cover other topics, like the NFL protests, North Korea, and tax reform. Related: How Fox News is covering the toughest day of the Trump presidency Additionally, Fox News aired segments that questioned Mueller's credibility and many were framed around how Trump and his allies were responding to the news. On Fox News' homepage, the lead story at one point was focused on Trump slamming the indictment. Another lead story cited Manafort's lawyer, and asked, "Mueller's 'ridiculous' claims?" "This kind of coverage does the viewer a huge disservice and further divides the country," one Fox News personality told CNN. Fox News journalists took significant issue with their network's opinion hosts, who deflected from the news and, in Sean Hannity's case, characterized Mueller's investigation as a "witch hunt," a term Trump used on Sunday in a angry tweet to describe the probe. "That segment on Outnumbered [questioning Mueller's integrity] was absurd and deserves all the scorn it can get," a Fox News employee told CNN, referring to the network's noontime talk show. The person added that it was "laughable seeing Hannity and [Laura] Ingraham," two Fox News opinion hosts who are openly supportive of Trump, "tripping over themselves saying [Mueller's team has] found nothing thus far." "It's an embarrassment," another Fox News employee echoed to CNN. "Frankly, there are shows on our network that are backing the President at all costs, and it's that short term strategy that undermines the good work being done by others."
I mean fox news is ridiculous, but it's basically a sideshow - talk radio is where the real conservative media is, Fox is given way too much credit and people devote lots of energy to taking them down when they're only a bit more important than MSNBC is to liberals.
Shareblue Media reporter Mike Stark has been harassed, ejected from public events, and prevented from covering Republican Ed Gillespie's campaign for governor of Virginia. Then he was thrown to the ground and handcuffed by six police officers.
YouTube After months of being harassed by Ed Gillespie’s campaign for simply trying to ask the Republican gubernatorial nominee questions, Shareblue Media reporter Mike Stark was violently arrested Saturday while filming the annual Annandale parade. Gillespie has repeatedly dodged questions from Stark about his increasingly racist campaign, uncomfortable endorsement from Donald Trump, and his use of his position in the Bush White House to do the bidding of his corporate lobbying clients. The evasion came to a head when Stark stood filming Gillespie’s campaign vehicle as it pulled up to the Annandale parade. A Fairfax County Mason District police officer demanded that Stark cease filming the vehicle and move back farther than the 20-yard distance already separating him from the vehicle. He was accompanied by a woman who had raised an objection to Stark’s presence at a Gillespie campaign event just the evening prior. After a brief back and forth, during which the police officer made clear that Stark would not be able to ask the gubernatorial candidate any questions at the public campaign event, Stark responded “f— this.” At that point, the officer moved to handcuff Stark. The disturbing footage below shows a second officer sweeping Stark’s legs from underneath him, violently throwing him face first into the sidewalk. More officers ran over and five men piled onto Stark’s back as he begged to free his arm from underneath his own body and the weight of the police. Multiple witnesses report that Stark was punched repeatedly in the legs during the altercation. Although the police officers claim in the video to be arresting Stark for swearing, citing county code 511, Stark was ultimately charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest and released on a $3000 bond. Meanwhile, Gillespie has just a week left in the campaign to hide from tough questions about his total capitulation to white supremacists and shady corporate lobbying practices. The unprecedented secrecy of his campaign has been noted by media attempting to cover his candidacy, including the Washington Post, which asked plaintively on Oct. 26, “Where in the World is Ed?“ The Gillespie campaign’s tactics for evading questions only escalated as the Republican has sunk in the polls. First, the candidate awkwardly sidestepped Stark’s question about his capitulation to the tobacco industry. Then the team was content to have the candidate simply ignore Stark when he posed a question about Gillespie’s racist ads. At the Wise debate, Gillespie’s campaign manager insisted that Stark be barred from the post-debate scrum, despite being fully credentialed to cover the event. Later, the Gillespie campaign attempted to use event venue staff to eject Stark. And then the Gillespie team resorted to using the police acting as event security to threaten Stark with trespassing as he stood with other media to cover campaign events. Hours after being released from the Fairfax County jail, Stark was waiting in the hallway of a strip mall, where Gillespie had a public event to talk to the Virginians whose votes he needs on Nov. 7. Stark asked the gubernatorial hopeful why he was so afraid to answer for the racism in his own campaign. The candidate ignored him. Stark retrieved his car from the alley where he had parked next to Gillespie’s car. On the ride home, he discovered his front passenger tire had been punctured.
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
Why "strangely silent"? There's a lot of stuff on the internet to consume, and most people who are on it will tacitly accept that most of it is dumb. Attempting to comment on everything that is dumb is pointless.
People comment on things that they care about. Such as, you care about some American culture war, so you will comment on things related to it.
I care about finding what’s the forum fringe and what’s mainstream. I’m constantly disappointed by the shift towards the fringe. Did you read the Coates piece and what did you think of it?
I am likewise disappointed by the shift to the fringe, as evidenced by my disdain of discussions related to "people on the internet" who only fringe opinions seem to care about.
The Coates piece, no, I don't think I've read. I didn't see any context in the last few pages to show which article was being talked about, but a quick Google shows it's probably "The First White President" one? I seem to recall you linking to it previously. I've seen enough articles to know it's probably an opinion piece wrapped up in social/political science jargon to try and expand it beyond opinion.
Since I love sharing local Portland political drama for you guys:
Pretty hilarious situation: Guy who worked for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) radio after growing up in an area known as a very rich white town around Portland tried running for city council. He comes from your classic family with money and was able to get his own bar up and running with a few of his other friends who also have family money to pat themselves on the back for being entrepreneurs. He talks about how he reads the news and hasn't really been involved much until now. But it gets a little dicey.
In no uncertain terms: This dude should straight up not be a member of city council. Great. But there are also some people putting him on full blast because there are 3 women of color running for city council. They are basically shaming him into quitting because they are saying his presence is a huge disrespect to women of color. L O L.
Sure, he's a spoiled little shit who has grown up thinking he is exceptional. But this goes off the deep end on the other side of things to. Just in case any of you have a bucket of popcorn nearby.
Spencer, you don’t have a single Facebook comment here supporting your decision. This is by no means a representative poll of Portland, but you’re clearly going to need to answer the question of why you’ve decided —as a straight, able-bodied, middle-class white man— to run against three qualified women of color.
If you can’t answer that question, open and honestly, what makes you think you’re ready for public office?
On November 01 2017 03:29 Velr wrote: Does this stuff in any way impact your day to day life? I ask because these hardcore feminists annoy me too, but they are just not present in my life.
So.. Do you follow media outrage or are you actually having experience on the subject?
Discussing politics and society and social trends is just a hobby. Later on this can impact my children and my friends children and my community. Then there’s the routine surprise when I see only people on the right object to the Coates article and the left is in agreement or strangely silent. That part’s just my attempt to understand why people who think differently than me conclude as they do.
Are you on board with the quoted arguments from the article? To what extent, if any, do you think toxic masculinity leads to this broad attack on masculinity itself by those that regularly criticize toxic masculinity?
So you agree that your basically just scared about stuff you see on TV.
Just like i tought... Well, then, keep on the fight against stuff you don't even encounter, know or have any clue about... UP UP AND AWAY...
edit: i didn't read any article, i just asked you out of pure curiosity after reading some of your latest posts.
Lol man. Not reading a short section of quoted post to ask questions about the back and forth. Yeah, you’re just confirming your own biases again out of laziness, no more.
On November 01 2017 05:14 Mohdoo wrote: Since I love sharing local Portland political drama for you guys:
Pretty hilarious situation: Guy who worked for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) radio after growing up in an area known as a very rich white town around Portland tried running for city council. He comes from your classic family with money and was able to get his own bar up and running with a few of his other friends who also have family money to pat themselves on the back for being entrepreneurs. He talks about how he reads the news and hasn't really been involved much until now. But it gets a little dicey.
In no uncertain terms: This dude should straight up not be a member of city council. Great. But there are also some people putting him on full blast because there are 3 women of color running for city council. They are basically shaming him into quitting because they are saying his presence is a huge disrespect to women of color. L O L.
Sure, he's a spoiled little shit who has grown up thinking he is exceptional. But this goes off the deep end on the other side of things to. Just in case any of you have a bucket of popcorn nearby.
Spencer, you don’t have a single Facebook comment here supporting your decision. This is by no means a representative poll of Portland, but you’re clearly going to need to answer the question of why you’ve decided —as a straight, able-bodied, middle-class white man— to run against three qualified women of color.
If you can’t answer that question, open and honestly, what makes you think you’re ready for public office?
You seem smart enough to do what’s right.
straight up racism
Portland seem crazy as fuck yo,
Why do they care that he is white running? What is going on there
On November 01 2017 05:14 Mohdoo wrote: Since I love sharing local Portland political drama for you guys:
Pretty hilarious situation: Guy who worked for Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) radio after growing up in an area known as a very rich white town around Portland tried running for city council. He comes from your classic family with money and was able to get his own bar up and running with a few of his other friends who also have family money to pat themselves on the back for being entrepreneurs. He talks about how he reads the news and hasn't really been involved much until now. But it gets a little dicey.
In no uncertain terms: This dude should straight up not be a member of city council. Great. But there are also some people putting him on full blast because there are 3 women of color running for city council. They are basically shaming him into quitting because they are saying his presence is a huge disrespect to women of color. L O L.
Sure, he's a spoiled little shit who has grown up thinking he is exceptional. But this goes off the deep end on the other side of things to. Just in case any of you have a bucket of popcorn nearby.
Spencer, you don’t have a single Facebook comment here supporting your decision. This is by no means a representative poll of Portland, but you’re clearly going to need to answer the question of why you’ve decided —as a straight, able-bodied, middle-class white man— to run against three qualified women of color.
If you can’t answer that question, open and honestly, what makes you think you’re ready for public office?
You seem smart enough to do what’s right.
straight up racism
Portland seem crazy as fuck yo,
Why do they care that he is white running? What is going on there
Portland has a few Facebook groups that are basically ANTIFA on steroids or ANTIFA purely applied to black stuff. Judging by the comments and the very similar number of likes for comments bashing the guy, it seems like this whole thing got posted across those groups. You can also see that it's ~30 people who are doing most of the commenting. It still does showcase some really fucked up shit though. This is the same town that had a taco cart shut down because of cultural appropriation.
EPT![[image loading]](https://shareblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Mike-Stark-arrest.png)
